Parramatta Eels sign Josh Papalii for 2014

[El Diablo]

all the talk is coming from canberra so i don't believe a word of it til the player himself speaks.

they have muzzled him and only let sources and Furner speak on his behalf

 

[mickdo]

Bullshit. If Alan Jones reported it then it would be true.

Got me there

 

[mickdo]

A source close to the Raiders said:

:lol:

One wonders how they sleep at night the way they peddle this crap

 

[Suitman]

I think Avenger posted this the other day.................. boring.

 

[El Diablo]

I think Avenger posted this the other day.................. boring.

it was only written for tomorrows paper

 

[Gary Gutful]

One wonders how they sleep at night the way they peddle this crap

On piles of cash made from people who buy their paper each day perhaps....

 

[Suitman]

it was only written for tomorrows paper

I meant the whole subject IS boring. :roll: Very f**king boring.
Nothing to do with the article, although your mistaken conclusion is for just this once, accepted.

Suity

 

[EelDredd]

PARRAMATTA are threatening legal action against the Canberra Raiders and the NRL if Josh Papalii backflips on his three-year deal to join the Eels. The development emerged as Raiders officials urged Papalii to make a call on his future before this week's opening round of the season.
Creating further tension between the two NRL clubs, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal that Eels officials are getting legal advice as the Raiders attempt to convince Papalii to stay in the capital.
Papalii agreed to the deal with Parramatta three weeks ago, signing the contract with his mother by his side. He told Eels officials he was excited about the opportunity to join the club.
Despite reports that the Raiders are disappointed with the way the negotiations were handled, Parramatta officials remain confident that the deal was signed without any concern the 20-year-old would change his mind.

"Three weeks ago, Josh was over the moon to be joining the Parramatta Eels. Today he's being swayed into breaking a legal contract," a Parramatta source said last night.
"Josh has a made a very courageous decision to sign this deal in good faith and take up a new challenge in Sydney.
"He's looking after his mum and family's future and he shouldn't have to be in this position where the Raiders are pressuring him into making a decision before Round 1.
"Josh has made his decision to join Parramatta, why would you place more pressure on him?
"It's unfortunate this continues to drag on. But the Raiders and the ARLC must understand if Papalii is swayed into breaking a legally binding contract we will be taking legal action.
"We sincerely hope for the game's sake it doesn't get to that stage, but that's how much Josh means to our club and at the end of the day the contract was signed in the knowledge he would be joining us in 2014. The last thing the NRL need is a legal wrangle in the middle of the season."
The Raiders are attempting to exploit a salary-cap loophole which states no contract can be registered until Round 13 of the new season. Eels officials also refute Canberra claims that Papalii had only signed a letter of intent, not a contract.
Papalii is yet to speak publicly about his decision to join the Eels but said in a statement announcing the deal: "The time I have spent with the Canberra Raiders have been the best of my life. The club and the fans have been so good to me and my family and I will always be grateful.
"Heading to Parramatta next season is a new and exciting challenge, they are a club on the rise and I am looking forward to being a part of what Ricky Stuart and the team up there are doing."
Eels coach Ricky Stuart said Papalii was the perfect fit for the Eels.
"Josh is an outstanding young footballer and will bring with him all the attributes we are looking for in a player at Parramatta."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ain-josh-papalii/story-e6frexnr-1226589155728

 

[Mr Pmatta]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ain-josh-papalii/story-e6frexnr-1226589155728

I don't understand where and how parra can take legal action if there is a 13 week cooling off period?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I don't understand where and how parra can take legal action if there is a 13 week cooling off period?

There's no 13 week cooling off period. I think you are confusing the Round 13 registration date for contracts. Better ask OMC to go over the specifics, and clarify the difference / similarities between this case and that of Nathan Smith and some other chap he bumped into at the races.

More seriously, whether Parra have recourse to legal action depends on the terms of the set of agreements that Papalii has apparently signed, and which we know SFA about.

 

[parra-matters]

i think that the rule is no contract will be registered til rd13, and i would say if Josh wanted to backflip and stay in canberra then both parties would have to agree to break the contract not one, if only one did then that would be breach of contract and the other party would need to be compensated.
If this ended up and court and the Raiders were found to have coerced (sp?) him into breaking a legal binding contract then they could be in as much trouble the person who's name is on the contract.

 

[Fathead]

Excellent. Finally a club standing up for a legal contract. If and only if, the contract was signed without clauses, the NRL and the raiders can quote all the crap about round 13 they wish but they will have no chance. At the end of the day, if parra pursue the matter in court, the player will have to either join the eels or nothing. I believe though, this will be a saving face exercise for the raiders. Look to the raiders now to say that they cannot pursue the player due to threatened legal action. Everyone saves face.

 

[strider]

the article only quotes an anonymous source - but we'll go with believing it cos it is a parra anonymous source instead of a canberra one :lol:

 

[Mr Pmatta]

i think that the rule is no contract will be registered til rd13, and i would say if Josh wanted to backflip and stay in canberra then both parties would have to agree to break the contract not one, if only one did then that would be breach of contract and the other party would need to be compensated.
If this ended up and court and the Raiders were found to have coerced (sp?) him into breaking a legal binding contract then they could be in as much trouble the person who's name is on the contract.

Ok thanks

 

[Chipmunk]

There's no 13 week cooling off period. I think you are confusing the Round 13 registration date for contracts. Better ask OMC to go over the specifics, and clarify the difference / similarities between this case and that of Nathan Smith and some other chap he bumped into at the races.

More seriously, whether Parra have recourse to legal action depends on the terms of the set of agreements that Papalii has apparently signed, and which we know SFA about.

Im thinking that perhaps NO NRL contract could actually be legally binding until it is actually registered by the NRL. Look at the recent Brett Stewart and SBW issues, now both wouldve signed a contract, if the NRL decided that Manly and the Rorters didnt have enough cap space to sign those two players, could the player then take legal action against the Club, because then they could also say they have a contract?

 

[bartman]

So this new Canberra deadline thing is just a ploy so that they can come out of this situation looking tough and in control, when Josh tells them to get knicked and that he's signed with Parra?

They've got until Round 13 to win him over, why would they suddenly invent a much earlier deadline for themselves, unless they knew he was gone?

 

[emjaycee]

I think contract between two parties (club and player) is different to registration by the NRL.
Nothing stopping SBW or for that matter Papalii having a contract with a club, but they cannot run onto the field in an NRL game unless registered. Said registration is subject to terms of the clubs agreement with the NRL including salary cap rules, etc.

No registration by the NRL just means the player doesn't get to play. It doesn't mean they don't have a contract.

 

[eels81236]

I think contract between two parties (club and player) is different to registration by the NRL.
Nothing stopping SBW or for that matter Papalii having a contract with a club, but they cannot run onto the field in an NRL game unless registered. Said registration is subject to terms of the clubs agreement with the NRL including salary cap rules, etc.

No registration by the NRL just means the player doesn't get to play. It doesn't mean they don't have a contract.

This is my understanding. Hence my prior comment that a court of law doesn't necessarily give a funk what the NRL think.

Do people really think that Brett Stewart only just now got his first paycheck for the year because his contract has only just now been registered by the NRL?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

This is my understanding. Hence my prior comment that a court of law doesn't necessarily give a funk what the NRL think.

Do people really think that Brett Stewart only just now got his first paycheck for the year because his contract has only just now been registered by the NRL?

You're right that the courts don't 'necessarily' care what the NRL thinks, but courts will take into account the context in which a contract was formed, the revealed intent of the parties, and may imply terms not explicit in the contract etc. If both parties are aware of the Rd 13 registration date, and the (apparent) right of the player's present club to make a counter offer prior to that date with respect to a contract that covers the player playing in the NRL, then I'm not too sure whether a court would intervene if the player reneged. But again, it really depends on the terms of the complete set of agreements b/w the club and player. He may be in breach of some agreements but not others.

Not sure that B Stewart getting paid is either 'here or there'. That just suggests that he has / has had a contract with Manly to do 'something' for them (maybe he's their women's ambassador). If he stepped onto an NRL field without a registered contract to play in the NRL, might have been interesting.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Im thinking that perhaps NO NRL contract could actually be legally binding until it is actually registered by the NRL. Look at the recent Brett Stewart and SBW issues, now both wouldve signed a contract, if the NRL decided that Manly and the Rorters didnt have enough cap space to sign those two players, could the player then take legal action against the Club, because then they could also say they have a contract?

Not true at all.

NRL registers players to play in the competition. They have no say over whether a club can or cannot sign someone to do nothing.

It would depend on the contractual arrangements, if Stewart were under contract to Manly to play NRL football, and the NRL didn't register him, then Manly would be off the hook. If he was under contract unconditionally, then Manly would have to pay him whether or not he got registered.